Pennridge School Board unveils revised bathroom policy

Transgender students would have options under new set of rules

EAST ROCKHILL — The Pennridge School Board on April 8 discussed a revised bathroom policy that would allow transgender students to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.

The policy was unveiled at the policy committee meeting for a first read following a legal review of the current policy, which requires students to use the bathroom that matches their biological sex. The policy, among others, sparked a federal civil rights complaint against the school district for sex discrimination.

The revised policy would establish three bathroom options — single-user bathrooms, multi-user bathrooms and gender-based bathrooms. Director of Student Services Ernest Johnson said that the policy would permit transgender students to use multi-user bathrooms that align with their gender identity.

“Students who identify differently than their sex assigned at birth or their biological sex may have an opportunity to use those multi-user bathrooms based on how they feel,” said Johnson, continuing, “The purpose of the policy is privacy and respect for the rights of all students and staff.”

Board member Ricki Chaikin took issue with the revised policy, raising concerns about the safety of female students.

“A biological male could go into my daughter’s bathroom. If that’s where this ends, my daughter will go to a charter school,” said Chaikin. “With no ill intent, most women are uncomfortable in the bathroom with a male there. I don’t want my daughter going through that.”

Policy committee chair Leah Rash denied that the policy would create a bathroom “free-for-all,” saying that there would be a “process” involving staff and guidance counselors.

“It’s not meant that a student can walk in and self-declare and be able to use whatever bathroom they want,” said Rash. “It doesn’t translate into fullygrown men walking into the bathrooms with our girl students. No one is saying that. I don’t want us to keep bringing that up to scare people when that’s never come up.”

Rash continued by arguing that the current policy violates Doe v. Boyertown Area School District, which ruled that transgender students cannot be required to use single user or birth-sex-aligned facilities. She added that the district cannot legally check students’ biological sex.

“Instead of trying to get our students and staff to police this down to a level that violates student’s rights, ‘Show me you’re a boy; show me you’re a girl,’ our options are to create safe spaces for all our students,” said Rash.

In addition to the Boyertown case, the policy also referenced Bostock v. Clayton County, the landmark Supreme Court case that outlawed employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, ruling that such discrimination constitutes a function of sex discrimination prohibited by the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Board member Jordan Blomgren denied that the current policy violates legal precedent, arguing that the Boyertown decision is “up to interpretation.” She further said that the Bostock decision only concerned employment discrimination and that both Title IX and Pennsylvania state law permit gender-segregated bathrooms.

Chaikin added that the federal civil rights complaint only called for additional bathroom options for transgender students. She condemned the revised policy for privileging a handful of students at the expense of the rest.

“In a building with 2,700 people, it’s somehow discriminatory to put single-user bathrooms for the six children who want it, but it’s not discriminatory to ask the 2,694 other kids to go to a certain bathroom?” asked Chaikin. “To take less than 1% of students and make them comfortable at the expense of 99% of the students makes no sense.”

Board member Carolyn Sciarrino suggested an official record of transgender students to prevent bad actors from abusing the bathroom policy. Johnson responded that such a record could violate students’ privacy.

“It would be hard for us to develop a list or have kids identify themselves because in some instances they truly want to create it private and we don’t want to create more harm by asking kids to self-identify,” said Johnson.

Sciarrino then inquired about potential consequences for abusing the bathroom policy. In response, Johnson said that the issue would be handled on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the district’s disciplinary policies and procedures.

“We can’t have a cookie-cutter response, because it depends on the gravity of the situation and what actually occurred,” said Johnson.

Board members Ron Wurz and Christine Batycki raised similar concerns about the revised policy and urged a balance of sex-based and gender-based bathrooms in addition to singleuser bathrooms.

“I think that respects both sides of the issue and gives people the privacy they need,” said Wurz. “We need to respect the rights of people who are uncomfortable.”

“I think we need to go back and flesh out more specifics,” said Batycki. “We need to think about implications at the middle and elementary school levels. I’m not sure that this is the right policy for that.”

After some discussion, the board agreed to review the revised policy with its solicitor to make adjustments and reintroduce the policy for another first read.

The board also discussed other bathroom safety issues, including vaping and drug use, harassment and bullying and fighting and assault. Johnson pointed to vaping, drug use and loitering as the primary issues.

In response, Johnson said, the administration has implemented more bathroom monitoring and checks, hired a female security guard to police the women’s bathrooms, instituted an anonymous reporting system for bathroom safety issues and locked down specific bathrooms at planned times to mitigate loitering.